Slashdot Mirror
15 Mutations Resulted In Increased Brain Size
naoursla writes "Researchers at the University of Chicago think they have identified 15 mutations in a gene responsible for brain development that gave humans abilities of abstract thought and planning. The article is at Discover.
They plan to insert the gene into mice to 'to see what affect it has on brain development.'"
They may want to look at the genetic mutations of dolphins and find out what made them have such a large brain, and be so intelligent that all that they do is swim in the water, eat fish and play around, whereas we build cars and buildings, and start wars.
Or why human midgets can have a brain size smaller than a chimpanzee and still have a genius IQ.
I think brain size is probably the least important determiner of human intelligence.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
The mutations in primates produced us (apparently), by increasing brain size. However, primates already had fairly large brains, so a 50% increase (or whatever it is) leads to many extra brain cells. Mice have very small brains to start with, so even if they get 50% bigger they are very unlikely to become anywhere near human intelligence. However, the next logical step is to perform these experiments on chimps and try and repeat evolution. That could cause serious ethical issues.
... given the record of "scientists" and their truly vile and obscene pursuits throughout the ages ...
Please be specific. Names, dates, places. With an explanation of what makes these incidents vile and obscene. Also please include a short, well-written essay on why you are willing to use the products of such a vile, obscene pursuit in your daily life rather than living in the woods and living on roots and berries.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Frankly, I don't think this is funny in the least.
The purposeful attempt to induce human-like intelligence in a lower species strikes me as one of the more vile and obscene pursuits a man of "science" [whatever that is] could possibly undertake. And, given the record of "scientists" and their truly vile and obscene pursuits throughout the ages, that's saying something.
Frankly, it strikes me as an affront against God.
"Affront against God" is one of those meaningless, yet highly emotionally charged, statements that can apply to almost anything.
First: I presume by "God" you are referring to the Christian God. Not everyone is Christian. Chances are that you would be offended if a Hindu person tried to shut down our scientific pursuits by declaring them "an affront against Vishnu", or tried to stop you from eating beef owing to the cow's status as a sacred animal. Why should a non-Christian care whether or not the Christian God is affronted?
Second: How do you know that the Christian God would be affronted in the first place? The Bible, to the best of my knowledge, does not tell us (even indirectly) not to tinker with mouse genes in an attempt to make them smarter. Even if the Bible does contain passages that might be interpreted in this fashion, A) it's a matter of interpretation, and B) modern-day Christians already ignore huge passages of the Bible, so what's one more?
Third: What makes this "vile and obscene"? A statement like that requires some exposition.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
"If God wanted mice to be smart, He'd allow us mess with their DNA." - me
"What God wants, God gets. God help us all." - Roger Waters
Frankly.You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
In the early days (and some today), people saw vaccines as tools of the devil because they were not natural or God-given. But vaccines have proven themselves as a strong tool against deadly diseases. And it's due to the doctors who persevered in the face of stronger religious ideals then today. This is another step in medicine, and the benefits that can result from it cannot be overlooked. But if most God-fearing Christians (I assume you're refering to the Christian God) would like to have work like this stopped, because it's an "affront against God". It's not an affront against God. It's science. It's research. It's tinkering with this, seeing the result, and wondering if it can be applied to that. It's trying to benefit that human race. The only thing that can interfere with that is people saying "You shouldn't do that because you might piss off the invisible man in the sky!" Sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone. But that argument has been used too many times to prevent legitimate research. It's being used now to prevent stem-cell research. And that's something that I and many other people are really looking towards, because of certain genetic risks that I and my family are exposed to right now. I'd like to know that, in the event that these risks become reality, someone has worked out all the problems and can treat me. Because as it stands now...if I am ever diagnosed with the same illness as my mother, I would suffer the same fate as her. And that's something I would NEVER want to put my kids through...
Don't fear what the invisible man in the sky *MIGHT* think. If he is up there, chances are you will probably misinterpret his meaning anyways. Just look at the "My God can beat up your God" BS happening in the world right now to see evidence of that. Instead...fear the things you know for sure exist in the world...
But still the increase in skull size can result in increased probability of death for both the infant and the mother during the birthing process. This is one of the main reasons why humans do not have astronomically large craniums. Unless there is a way nature/humans can allow for the growth of larger craniums, we will remain as smart as we are now.
As a Christian who believes in the sanctity of human life while not necessarily the sanctity of mouse life (please understand, I'm not trolling here), this raises concerns for me.
Let me start off by saying that I feel that there is something spiritually unique that comes with our human mind in terms of persistent experience through a long term memory, inter-generational passing of memes through language, and a higher-order basis for desire and suffering.
Once we pass this experience, some may call it a curse or a blessing, (I prefer the latter), on to animals, we are entering a new role of responsibility as a Creator. I think this sort of science is as inevitable as the nuclear bomb, and don't get me wrong -- I'd rather see it in the hands first of (aproaching-)democractic states, but we have to tread cautiously in my opinion.
Consider, where will this take us? Slave animals to fight our wars, clean our toilets, and tickle our fancy? Or a "brotherhood" (sisterhood if you prefer) of species working towards a better world? Probably both, but most likely, in my opinion, the former. As silly as it was, Planet of the Apes did raise some important concerns, as have many other works of science fiction. (Cue Charleton Heston shouting "it's a madhouse!")
I'm not saying that splicing those genes into a mouse is going to produce "human-mice" that we need to hire lawyers for to defend themselves against medical treatment, (although lawyers once again seem poised to score big bucks), but at what threshold do we create something which deserves fundamental human rights? (Cue Picard and Data in that STNG episode.)
Science is moving so fast that our understanding of the larger ethical questions is struggling to keep up. I urge you as you feel excitement about developments like this to look inside your own moral compass, whatever faith or wisdom molded your clay, and look for answers and new questions.
May the Creator guide our hands wisely, and may we please his aesthetic sense.
Only a Scandanavian scientist would come up with the theory that melancholy gloom and existential despair are what makes humans great.
I'm surprised noone's made any comments how this resembles the background of David Brin's "Uplift" saga... that humankind cracks the secret of intelligence through genetics, and passes the gift on to his fellow species.
What gets me is, once we realize that we *can* make our fellow creatures intelligent (or should I say, self-aware), then what? It is ethically immoral (to me) to then kill them, yet it is unfair to the self-aware critter to say "we were only doing this to see if we could, you're the last, sorry".
Oh well, I gotta get back to work.
You've got it the wrong way around ...
They've spliced snake brain capacity, 800-pound gorilla brain capacity, and dinosaurs brain capacity into humans.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.